Mr Moses Forson

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Moses Forson

Teacher reference number: 1131391

Teacher's date of birth: 6 March 1974

Location teacher worked: London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 21 January 2026

Outcome type: Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Moses Forson formerly employed in London, England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Moses Forson: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 123 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Moses Forson Teacher ref number: 1131391 Teacher date of birth: 6 March 1974 TRA reference: 21535 Date of determination: 21 January 2026 Former employer: Kew House School (“the School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 21 January 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Moses Forson. The panel members were Ms Geraldine Baird (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Tim Foy (lay panellist) and Mrs Georgina Bean (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Clare Strickland of Blake Morgan Solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Forson that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Forson provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Forson or his representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 12 January 2026. It was alleged that Mr Forson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a Teacher of Business at Kew House School: 1. He provided false and/or misleading information to one or more teaching agencies by; a. Providing one or more character and/or professional references for Individual A confirming that he had worked at Kew House School, when this was not the case; b. Stating on one or more occasions he was the Head of Department at Kew House School when in fact he was a Teacher of Business; c. Providing one or more character and/or professional references for Individual A, when in fact he knew some or all of the information contained was supplied by Individual A and the reference(s) were not wholly completed by himself. 2. His behaviour as may be found proven at 1 above was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Mr Forson admitted the facts alleged. Mr Forson admitted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of referral and response – pages 7 to 43 Section 2: Statement of agreed facts – pages 45 to 47 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 49 to 62 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 64 to 149 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 152 to 172 5 In addition, the panel received an additional document, an undated personal statement from Mr Forson. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle in advance of the hearing, and that they had read the additional document on receipt, before making any final decisions on the case. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020 (“the Procedures”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Forson on 7 January 2026. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Forson for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Forson was employed as a Teacher of Business at the School from 1 January 2021. On 23 January 2023, Vision Teaching Agency contacted the School to query a verbal reference provided by Mr Forson for Individual A. Individual A had informed Vision Teaching Agency that he was employed at the School between January 2018 and July 2022, and had said that Mr Forson was his Head of Department. Mr Forson confirmed this information in a call with Vision Teaching Agency. Mr Forson was not Head of Department, and Individual A had never worked at the School. When first spoken to by the School, Mr Forson said he had only provided one character reference for Individual A, and that he had not done anything wrong. He denied having spoken to Vision Teaching Agency. When shown references that purported to have been completed by him, he denied that he had completed them. The School investigated further, including by reviewing Mr Forson’s school email account. It found that between November 2022 and January 2023 he had been providing 6 professional references to other agencies about Individual A and/or allowing Individual A to provide references in his name. These references included the false claims that Mr Forson was Head of Department and that Individual A had worked at the School. There was at least one occasion when he had forwarded an online reference link to Individual A so that Individual A could complete the reference himself. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: Whilst employed as a Teacher of Business at Kew House School: 1. You provided false and/or misleading information to one or more teaching agencies by; a. Providing one or more character and/or professional references for Individual A confirming that he had worked at Kew House School, when this was not the case; b. Stating on one or more occasions you were the Head of Department at Kew House School when in fact you were a Teacher of Business; c. Providing one or more character and/or professional references for Individual A, when in fact you knew some or all of the information contained was supplied by Individual A and the reference(s) were not wholly completed by yourself. 2. Your behaviour as may be found proven at 1 above was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. The allegations were admitted and supported by the evidence received by the panel. The panel was satisfied that the admissions were consistent with the other evidence, and that the admissions were unequivocal. The panel therefore found the allegations proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. 7 The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Forson, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Forson was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions.  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach…  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel also considered whether Mr Forson’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that the offence of fraud or serious dishonesty was relevant. The panel noted that the allegations took place within the education setting. In providing and facilitating the provision of false references, Mr Forson misused the trust placed in him by the School. The panel concluded that the conduct had the potential to cause risk of harm to pupils by facilitating the employment of a person as a teacher who may not be suitable. On the face of it, Mr Forson put the interests of an old acquaintance ahead of the interests of the schools that might consider hiring that person, and ahead of the interests of their pupils. The evidence before the panel suggested that the conduct took place over a period of time between November 2022 and January 2023, and only stopped after Vision Teaching Agency raised concerns about information provided directly to it by Mr Forson on 24 January 2023. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Forson amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. In relation to whether Mr Forson’s actions amounted t